MR. KURTZ: I think at a lot of news organizations an editor would have said... you don't have the details of the sexually suggestive behavior that made them angry. Go back and get more. You could have waited, there was nothing forcing you to publish this last Sunday.

Martin blabbers. Kurtz makes him suffer. Watch the video at the link.

Meanwhile, on "Meet the Press," David Gregory had a chance to interrogate Maggie Haberman, whom he identifed as "Politico's reporter covering the Cain story." Gregory asked her absolutely nothing about Politico's behavior. He put up a quote from Cain, saying he'd like to leave the story behind and "get back on message," and asks her "So how does he really do that when there are more questions, which are primarily what?"

MS. MAGGIE HABERMAN: Well, I think among the questions are does he remember the second woman who we reported on? He says he has no memory of her whatsoever. Other media outlets have confirmed that there was another woman who had made some kind of complaint about sexually inappropriate behavior.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MS. HABERMAN: And Mr. Cain's campaign last night not only said they don't want to talk about this anymore, but they, you know, said they were going to email people the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, and did to one of my colleagues. I think this is where you're going to see the pivot. They are going to say the media is out to get him. I think that it has served them well this week.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

MS. HABERMAN: I think that's how he's gotten around some conflicting answers about what's happened. I don't know that he's going to be able to not answer or at least not get asked them anymore, going forward.

At that point, Gregory moves on to another guest. That is, he lobbed Haberman a question that she was able to use to place the burden on Cain to come forward with the details, and Gregory asked nothing. Unless you consider "Mm-hmm" to be something. Haberman mentioned the code of ethics from the Society of Professional Journalists, but that did not rouse Mr. Gregory from his slumbers. Tim Russert would have grilled her. She needed grilling. Why have her on the show and not interrogate her?

Tawana Brawley story ignited the left. Even Bill Cosby jumped in. The left has learned: this time we just make the allegations, but make any aspect of how to substantiate the allegations impossible by not even naming the so-called victim.

I can tell you, speaking from listening to comments at the K-street super-consultant shindigs, that people are upset at the Cain story. They want Cain to skate through the primary. Any negative story of Cain or Perry is really upsetting people at the WH.

Yes, no one likes Kurtz. He is off-the game plan. Gregory is getting back to the game-plan. Let Cain be Cain.

POTUS Obama's re-election will be better if his opponent is Perry (preferable) or Cain. Perry is preferable due to his large ego. HE will fall big, and thus excite the POTUS's base.

The "behavior" didn't make the plaintiffs "angry" or "uncomfortable". those aren't legal standards. It was conduct facially sufficient to make out a charge of sexual harassment as defined by courts of law. It's not a political issue, it's a legal issue. He knew that there were multiple settlements, and he knows that he was guilty of doing this many many times without getting caught. Only about 2% of the victims will ever file a formal complaint. He felt entitled to harass and abuse these women at the time and he feels entitled to belittle and demean them now, just as many of the people who post here feel entitled to belittle and demean women.

Shorter Althousian narrative: "How dare you criticize or question the integrity of a Republican candidate for president?"

Who has said you can't criticize them, Ritmo? Not Althouse. Not anyone here. But if you are going to do it, you'd better have some evidence to back it up, or your criticism is just shit. Do you follow that argument? It's really very simple.

It's pretty interesting how quick Ann Althouse is to assume that women might be making false allegations or complicit when it comes to sexual harassment and similar charges. Why, do you think, that a woman would be so quick to predict that other women could be lying and/or embellishing the truth for their own gain? I mean, I'm sure it happens, but why be so quick to take that perspective with people going up against someone with that much power, especially when yutzes who hold the journalistic magnifying glass, like Howie Kurtz, can't bother to hold anyone in office to account on anything?

It's pretty interesting how quick Ann Althouse is to assume that women might be making false allegations or complicit when it comes to sexual harassment and similar charges. Why, do you think, that a woman would be so quick to predict that other women could be lying and/or embellishing the truth for their own gain?

Well, it would be pretty interesting if Althouse had actually said or done those things!

What she said, in reality, is that these allegations are incredibly vague and that they contain no information from which we can reasonably assume that Cain did anything.

I'm sure she's sympathetic to the routine criticism of whether the candidate is conservative enough, but other than that, not a lot of substance. Politics is necessarily a show here. If it weren't, then where's her in-depth posts on the substance of John Huntsman, or the ideas of Ron Paul, for that matter? (That's the only part of his campaign that does matter, and deservedly so). Within the hundreds of posts uploaded each month, you'd think you'd catch some of that.

But I'm really past all that. The topic has to do with the particular subject matter here, and the predilection for investigating the idea that the politician is being treated more unfairly than someone with infinitely less power who makes charges of that pol. She won't like it, but see: Jessica Valenti for details.

Is there not a pattern here when it comes to a certain view of sexual harassment? She's more than entitled to assume that women could be making it up, in it for nefarious purposes, or that mere discomfort is too vague a standard. That's fine if that's what you want to think. But don't bs me into thinking that makes for objective blogging.

One of the really remarkable thing about the internet is that I can read something (like this post by Althouse), and Ritmo can read the same thing... and we can come to completely different conclusions about what she said.

I don't see anything in Althouse's remarks about the credibility of the women in question.

I haven't even been following the Sexual Chocolate case (heard someone else say that, I didn't make it up) to know if any further details, er, erupted since Friday. But I do know that there is a predilection here for wanting to see false or nefarious allegations (which can occur). That wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it weren't for the fact that Howie Kurtz never calls any politicians to account on anything. He is the laziest example of MSM power-protection and bootlicking and Ms. Althouse's choice of litigants wouldn't bother me nearly as much if she ever bothered to take on journalists as lazy and demonstrably interested in cozying up to Washington as the insufferable Howie Kurtz.

The fact that he is on CNN is a scandalous joke. You guys bemoan Journo-List like there's no tomorrow and then give these softball players (and Tim Russert before him) the widest pass possible.

I don't see anything in Althouse's remarks about the credibility of the women in question.

Where do you see this, Ritmo?

In fairness to Ms. Althouse, it's not reached that point yet. But given the Jessica Valenti thing, I'd think she might consider being circumspect when it comes to choosing which side she takes to account more rigorously: The Journalist with a sleazy habit of cozying up to politicians (Kurtz) or the Journalist publishing the accounts of people who made allegations of this politician emanating from actual legal settlements.

The fact that you can't distinguish between what I have a personal interest in and what I have to say says everything anyone needs to know about your understanding of journalistic objectivity -- or rather, your utter lack thereof.

Women are not necessarily sympathetic to female complainants who have been sexually harassed. If the harasser was male, internalized sexism, and/or jealousy over the sexual attention towards the victim, may encourage some women to react with as much hostility towards the complainant as some male colleagues

I can't get over this aching fear I have of a pizza chain CEO and motivational speaker. Every night I have nightmares about him breaking through my bedroom window and hawking annoying and mathematically nonsensical tax plans that, when inverted, reverberate with Michelle Bachmann's fear of the sign of the devil.

"Howie, I think any journalist would find the, uh -- a report of two women got a fine figure, each, cash payout after alleged sexual harassment against a CEO of a trade group that is now a major contender for president, newsworthy. And that's the story we had, and that's what we published."

Next up, women sue over typo.

Martin said that one of the women was made to feel uncomfortable in a hotel room. I'm wondering if he just meant hotel or if it was actually in a room. If I had gone to the hotel room of a man, or invited him to mine, I would not be insulted if he assumed that we were going to do more than conduct business. (Whether the assumption is correct or not.)

The fact that you can't distinguish between what I have a personal interest in and what I have to say says everything anyone needs to know about your understanding of journalistic objectivity -- or rather, your utter lack thereof.

That graf is complete gibberish. You apparently have a lot of practice in sounding smart without the substance to back it up.

Jonathan Martin has raped at least three women. Except we can't tell you their names for legal reasons. And they don't want to discuss details of the rapes or make public statements. Doesn't matter, he's still a rapist. See what I did just there?!

So Tyrone Schmutzkopf also can't understand the difference between speaking about something and having a personal interest or stake in that same thing!

Quick! Someone call the literary review! Emergency, emergency! Someone did not use the Queen's English in how they constructed their dependent clauses! Someone neglected to place the preposition at THE BEGINNING of the phrase!

Someone committed the dastardly sin of writing in the same way that people actually speak.

Obviously, your English teachers spent too much time teaching you how to think.

Geez soremouth. I haven't seen this much dirty laundry and old baggage aired at divorce proceedings. It's like watching a middle-school "couple" break up publicly in the hallway. Your man-crush on me has really reached creepy proportions.

In the above, I missed commenting that we cannot discuss the credibility of the original complaints lodged by the women, since we do not yet know what their alleged were. Just knowing that they alleged something won't cut it.

New York said;Women are not necessarily sympathetic to female complainants who have been sexually harassed. If the harasser was male, internalized sexism, and/or jealousy over the sexual attention towards the victim, may encourage some women to react with as much hostility towards the complainant as some male colleagues

Blair, you are absolutely right! you don't need always need the testimony of a live complainant to establish all the elements of a crime. The laws of evidence,varied and complex, have evolved over hundreds of years. If you are really interested in finding out what constitutes sexual harassment in the United States, I encourage you to read and learn more. I would not rely on water cooler banter (what we have here) to inform myself on legal issues.

What is the difference between what you have an interest in and what you say? You see, I've read that sentence at least twenty times now, and it still doesn't make any sense.

Here's an example. If I say: "Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries are divorcing", it doesn't mean that I give a rat's ass as to how the property is split. And yet, I can still objectively note that this trifling event is about to occur.

I have to apologize. I've been around here long enough to know the Ritmo pattern. Show up, start making indefensible statements and then thrash around like a carp in a bathtub while demanding we pay homage to his superior intellect and exquisite sensitivity. I'm guilty of encouraging him. Forgive me.

Bill Clinton is alleged to have pulled out his penis and said, "Kiss it." Paula Jones, unhappy, sued him for sexual harrassment. Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000.

Herman Cain is alleged to have done ______________ to ____________. And so _________________, unhappy, sued him for sexual harrassment. Cain's employer looked at the evidence and decided to fire ___________, and settled her claim for $35,000.

So what do we know?

Cain probably didn't pull his penis out and say, "kiss it," right? I mean, the going rate for that is $850,000. Although I have heard Bill Clinton has a particularly ugly penis. Don't ask me where I heard that. The internet, maybe.

So it's like we're playing the $35,000 Pyramid. Whatever he said, it's got to be like 1/20th as offensive as pulling out your penis and saying "kiss it."

Things that he could have said that would offend a woman, so that she files a HR complaint, and the case is settled by her quitting the company and getting a year's pay.

"Want to sit in my lap?"

"What are you, a B cup?

"Fresh cut grass, it smells like semen."

"You got nice legs."

"Come on up to my hotel room where we can work in private."

"I think it's totally cool to say pubic hair, if you got a pube on a coke can."

"Did you see that Seinfeld episode last night? They weren't allowed to masturbate."

"Democrats are pussies."

I could do this all frickin' day. They worked for a restaurant association, right?

"I heard oysters are an aphrodisiac. You feeling horny?"

"I heard chocolate is an aphrodisiac. You feeling horny?"

"I heard pineapple is an aphrodisiac. You feeling horny?"

"Is that the Wonderbra?"

"You want a backrub?"

"You want to give me a backrub?"

"I was reading the Althouse blog, and I don't understand what's sexy about bowel movements. That doesn't make any sense. Why is he talking about going to the bathroom? That's not sexy."

"You're the perfect height. I could rest a beer on your head."

"Man, I could really use a backrub."

"Holy crap, I got a pube on my coke can."

If Herman Cain had any balls ($10,000), he would turn this imbroglio into a teaching moment, and discuss how stupid feminism and liberalism is in the 21st century. Indeed, I suspect the only reason __________________ got $35,000 and her walking papers is that corporations get sued all the time, and they are terrified that they are going to have some dumb stupid jack-offs ($30,000) on the jury who think anytime you sue a corporation, it's like winning the lottery. "It doesn't cost us anything."

In fact Cain should be telling us how it's stupid for a corporation to be sued, if the employee is acting outside the scope of his employment. Which, lets face it, he probably is. But nobody sues the guy. You sue the corporation. Because corporations have the money. So you sue the corporation, even though the corporation is innocent.

And there's not a guy in the universe who is going to give you $35,000 because you pretended to be offended because of some damn Seinfeld episode. Or whatever the hell he said. The only reason this whole frickin' tort exists is because liberalism has convinced large numbers of Americans that corporations happily give out money, and it doesn't cost us anything.

But Herman Cain is not going to turn this into a teaching moment, because he doesn't have any balls ($15,000--because you didn't learn anything from that earlier balls lawsuit, asshole ($10,000), pardon my French ($20)--and also he's probably trying to avoid the internet rant style of campaigning. Although what he's doing now doesn't seem to be working, either. And that's all I have to say on that. Big dick out. ($40,000)

My dear Shouting, I do have a garden, I used to can a lot but now give away a great deal to my kids and neighbors. My house has a lake in front of it and in the back of all the yards is a nature preserve, so we get some great produce with no farm runoff in the soil or lake.My row of raspberries are finally mature and it's heaven to go out early in the morning to pick some fresh for my yogurt. Watch out for the little green worms though.

OK, Allie, I take it all back. House, lake, RN, garden.

If the tits are OK, and still in their original position (that is above the belly button), let's get married.

Mmmm hmmmm. I see. But in the same thread, he said he has a girlfriend. I mean, Shouting's a good guy, has been a doting husband in the past, but methinks you'll want a guy that you won't want to kill in the first week - and for reasons other than your breasts.

Although that part did get me slightly hot.

We'll have much more to do and agree on. It'll be a blast. Shouting's a charming guy with a guitar and a motorcycle, but then, so am I.

Allie--you big brain comment was a high hanging curve ball--excuse me for taking a swing at it, but precise in which head is the big brain? (no offense intended--some high hangers are just to good to be left alone, as you alluded to above.) :)

Should I have proposed marriage right off the bat? I hope you're not like that.

I'm only green once a year during Mardi Gras. Or at bedtime.

Think of all the love we'll be able to make out in the garden, or by the lake, at nightfall if need be. Or not.

Shouting would consider that much too primeval. But you and I can be natural like that. Together. You think these detractors call the hippies "dirty" on account of hygiene?

No ma'am.

Imagine being covered in the flowers that you're being made love to on top of.

I dare you to pass that up.

Plus, I've got the finances and the taste to enjoy that old house. I love Wisconsin. And I travel with room for two as often as you'd like. When we're not getting stuck in the charming shops of Madison or other, more rustic corners of the state.

Ritmo--point of order--in this era of sensitivity and PC, your post could be considered as prima facie evidence of harassment--I regard it as quite charming banter, but had you done this in the workplace, you might be in herman cain's position.

And not that it matters, but methinks someone is also not understanding the meaning of the term "unwanted".

Where I work, there are couples who met there. "Might" is very operative here, Roger. H.R. departments have not exactly been unclumsy and cloddish in how they carried out the marching orders of P.C.-ness, but luckily I work in a place where that's not the problem it is elsewhere (not that I'd take them up on that).

Ritmo--I understand your points, but when an allegation is made, a lawyer is hired, depositions are taken and it goes before a jury, yours and my understandings of sexual harrassment will be quite irrelevant. Never underestimate the ingenuity of our legal profession to profit from vagueness in the law and take their chances before jury.

An unwillingness to undergo harassment shouldn't be an excuse to outsource basic tact (and the missed signals that can inevitably come with it) to the arcane inanity of policy clauses.

Don't think that I was ever on board with that stuff.

I just know that, through experience, it's better to avoid it work than otherwise. That's just how it goes, unfortunately. Americans are too immature to deal with either unwanted rejection or unwanted interest in a mature, let alone professional way, and we have outsourced any dealings in that capacity to the legal profession, unfortunately.

Again, don't think I'm onboard with this idea that we have to outsource to others responsibility for our own flirtations or faux-pas. But by now (or even ten years ago), and at his age, and given his position, Cain should have known the rules.

Ritmo--I am in agreement with your argument, and I didnt mean to imply you made an allegation--the current state of sexual harrassment law, IMO, means that one who thinks he or she might have been harrassed, or worse, made to feel "uncomfortable" may make such an allegation, and worse yet, have the law on their side. Which may be why settlement is always more cost effective than a jury trial.

I really dont have a dog in this contretemps--but it is an interesting discussion.

Anyway--tandoori chicken and east idian style okra and green beans tonite--much more rewarding the internet discussions.

You're right that it is vague how one defines "unwelcome". That's why I just tend to avoid romantic dealings in the workplace. If it's true that what I said to Allie could have been defined as legally "unwelcome" even in light of all the affection that she took the initiative to bestow upon me first, that would indeed be a strange and even Orwellian scenario.

I'm in no mood to extend this, but still I'm curious... Did your H.R. department ever even have to deal with employees who had been definitively, romatically involved with each other outside of work? I'm happy to say that mine has and is accepting of both them and other family relationships at my small shop, as I see that fact as evidence for their adeptness in differentiating true harassment from a lover's spat that just happened to occur at work, and one which risks being disturbingly mischaracterized -- which many guys (perhaps egotistically) might assume to fear, as unlikely as it is.

Just exploring. If we want to actually transcend political correctness, we're going to have to come to a better understanding of what tends to occur in actual human relationships and dealings at every level, including what goes wrong with them.

Oh, BTW, when I refer to the initiative taken to bestow certain affections first, Roger, I talk of things said much earlier (and more explicitly) than on this thread. Just FYI. Not to "indict" Allie or anything, just to throw context into the conversation you observed. Thanks -

The "behavior" didn't make the plaintiffs "angry" or "uncomfortable". those aren't legal standards. It was conduct facially sufficient to make out a charge of sexual harassment as defined by courts of law

Except no court was involved and you have no way of backing up this imbecilic assertion with facts.

The other sex story out there is that there's a woman who claims Justin Bieber made her pregnant in a 30-second encounter "backstage."

If true, then Justin Bieber was raped. He was 16. And, he couldn't give "consent." The other thing? This new mom says she knows what the private backstage bathroom looks like ... because Justin Beiber's bodyguard (whose name I'm sure she does not know), took him there for this "assignation."

Why do some sex stories make headlines? Because they involve celebrities.

Does running for the president ... where people can recognize you now, make gossiping about sex stories "valid?"

Valid has nothing to do with gossip. And, if you become famous. Or you choose to run as a candidate for president. Tattle tales about your sex life are bound to come out.

What did Herman Cain think? For a few months salaries to these ladies he was buying confidentiality agreements?

Would an organization settle two sexual harassment suits against its CEO knowing that they would be a mark on his honor and his record? Cain had a very high profile in the hospitality industry and in DC and was obviously ambitious PLUS he is a prominent A-A. I suspect the charges were strong enough that they had to settle or risk worse.

On the other hand maybe Cain is a jerk and maybe there is something to all this and in the right wing's spinning attempt to save the latest anyone but Romney from the obscurity he so richly deserves, they pittle away at anyone and everyone as seen here.

that annie would take up the cry is at face pathetic. but heck, what do i know about the demons that rule right wing minds.

Folks like David Gregory peddle what I call "the narrative," in which they portray themselves as dispassionate mainstream media truth-tellers. In truth they are spokesmen for the progressive power structure and indeed, make out extremely well within it. Google people like Gregory, examine the connections, and you gain some real perspective as to where he is realing coming from. It helps you thus appreciate not only their undisclosed biases, but also "the rest of the story." Try it and you will often be surprised what turns up.

In this case Mrs. Gregory (Beth Wilkinson) was executive vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of Fannie Mae from February 2006 until September 2008. September 2008? What an interesting and opportune time to leave the auspices of the sinking ship known as Fannie Mae.

So for example, when discussing the financial crisis, where do Gregory's loyalties lie --- running cover for the powers that be, or as he would style it, with reporting the news?

Yo Ann--you running a 'Match Com" here? Is Ann/Meade your 'testimonial'?O/T-as far as the 3 'accusers' are concerned I have 3 questions 'they' can answer which will tell us the truth:1. Are 'they' vigins?2. Do 'they' have multiple sexual partners of either sex or species?3. Do they have multiple STD's?

I should let the words 'accusers/they' remain that specific but I'll be vauge. I mean the original 3 'journolists' from Politico.

Geez Allie, what a damn capricious and insecure cocktease you are, now deleting that 5:48 comment and all. Tell you what, you can take Shouting. You'll need someone as capriciously strong-willed as him. I made a vow to avoid flakes long ago and I am sorry to see that you are nowhere near as steadfast in your assertions as you'd made yourself out to be earlier.

Get that part down and maybe you'll be my hero too, but I'm not into one-way admiration.

Why not at least have threatened to take the women to court? It doesn't look like they want publicity. They stood to lose their "employability" in DC if exposed for baseless lawsuits. According to Cain their charges were ridiculous. Is Cain such a shrinking violet that he would allow two marks on his record over "frivolous" claims?

Transcript of a press conference at Sharon, Connecticut Monday August 15, 1988:

Q: What is the purpose of "Buckleys for Leiberman?"

A: To generate support for the defeat of Lowell Weicker.

Q: So that it is primarily the retirement of Weicker rather than the election of Leiberman you wish?

A: You can't have one without the other. As for Joe Lieberman, he is a moderate Democrat, and it is always possible that he will progress in the right direction. There is no such hope for Lowell Weicker.

Mencken is famous among other reasons for writing of the state that it is "the natural enemy of all well-disposed, decent, and industrious men." And it is certainly difficult to deny the near-cosmic damage done by the state during this century. The thirty million dead Russians and fifteen million dead Germans and forty-odd million dead Chinese were not slaughtered by the private sector. And, in America, $200 Billion of welfare having been spent to document our concern for those who need help, we see a growing class of the perpetually demoralized: young men and women--boys and girls in many cases--whose professions, under state training, are childbearing, unemployment, and in many cases, drugs and crime.

Oprah Winfrey has been in contact with one of the women involved in this case. They are going to make a movie out of it. In order not to racially stereotype Herman Cain, they have hired Freddie Kreuger to play his part. The woman in question will be played by the Olson twins' younger sister. It will be a fair and disinterested dramatization of this important event in Herman's life.

"Tim Russert would have grilled her. She needed grilling. Why have her on the show and not interrogate her?"---Because Gregory isn't anywhere close to being Tim Russert. Gregory will, at best, be a footnote in journalist history.

Oh my Ritmo, you have awakened something that has lain dormant since my late husbands death, I long to caress your green skin and gaze into your yellow and blue eyes, sigh.......I can't get that flower bed out of my mind, I think that won me over.

I think you're stuck. If I'd answered "twenties", you'd be my cougar. If I were more in my forties - fifties or so, no problem. But I answered in a way that puts me in age-disparity limbo, and I suspect that bothers you.

Well, Meade actually showed up at my blog a few times years back. I suspect it was some kind of "peace offering" as my words for Althouse's game were sometimes hot, but not the good kind of hot. Scalding hot. We built a slight rapport, for a time. And I respected the guy. So, by proxy, I have to respect Althouse for choosing him.

He is not as thin-skinned as the missus. Quirky, funny, earthy, simple and honest - he is not perfect and makes his minor mistakes from time to time. But I love the guy too much.

Althouse just likes a good show. Which makes me suspect that she will look much more kindly upon our open-air romance than anything that either one of us has to say about politics.

But honestly, your retorts here are witty enough for her to appreciate.

I think I'm a liberal although I try to understand both. Do I believe reason can improve the human condition and is more important than institutions? Yes. According to John Locke, who founded the ideology, that makes me a liberal.

Psychologically, conservatives prefer order. I can do the order thing but never place it above reason. Purpose prevails.

It's why half of my criticisms here are posed toward the irrelevance of an argument or line of thought.

I thought you were the woman with the blonde-silver hair in front of the signs about Gov. Walker, et al?

Ok. That gives me enough information. I might try to find the post, but it's of little consequence. She probably got possessive about Madison (having grown up in Delaware and gone to school in Ann Arbor and NYC), so it might have felt personal for her. I wouldn't take it personally.

Tis been a lovely night chatting with you, Doll. Have a great one and see you again soon.

Looks Like Howie Kurtz was doing "show prep" listening to Limbaugh who said:

As Wes Pruden, former editor-in-chief of the Washington Times, points out when he ran the Washington Times newsroom: If somebody like The Politico reporters would have brought this story to him, he woulda thrown 'em down the steps -- and if they survived that, he would have fired them. (paraphrased exchange) "You're telling me you want my newspaper to publish this rotgut? What do you got? There's nothing here! I want names, places, activities, things that happened. There's nothing here!"

Were it only the satanic imagery of his book, in addition to the treasonous title, Steyn could claim a satirical or graphic-warning-to-shock-the-folks-into-action-like-O'Reilly-has-to-do-by-golly-it's-his-darn-job type of excuse.

But Steyn is adamant for his Armageddon; negligent to the philosophically profound concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy whilst building value for himself as the "wittiest doomsayer" or some such title when his vision, if his vision, develops.

Jonathan Martin is piling shame upon hackery. Such an unnecessary display of disgrace. David Gregory is an ongoing disgrace (but that's not new). Maggie Haberman ought take care lest she gets struck by the falling star to which she has attached her striving.

Howie interviewed Mark Whitaker, the editor of Newsweek, at the end of same Reliable Sources episode. It was amusing because Mark was the guy who made the decision NOT to run Isikoff's Monica Lewinski story.

Howie: "One of the most famous, or infamous, decisions you made while filling in as editor at the time was in the Monica Lewinski story. Mike Isikoff basically had the goods or at least it looked that way later, and the thing I never understood about the decision to hold the story is that you had confirmed Ken Starr, independent prosecutor, had investigated. Why wasn't that enough to go on?

Mark Whitaker: "Well a couple of things. Mike (Isikoff) really knew a lot. It wasn't just a couple of things like Woodward and Bernstein where they knew a little piece - where they only knew about Starr. He (Mike) knew a lot about it but he never met Lewinski herself. All of his sources were around her, so we didn't know just how credible she was and once Starr had her under protective custody, we couldn't question her."

There you have it. In the same hour interview show Howie Kurtz learns why the press was right to run a story accusing a Republican with precious little information and why the press was right in holding a story accusing a Democrat where they "really knew a lot."

I listened to the Kurtz interview yesterday and believe he let them skate a little also. Jonathan Martin twice made mention that the story was that these women were paid off after making sexual harrassment allegations against Cain. If that's the story, why isn't the subsequent investigation, that found nothing substantive, not relevant?

Can't remember where I heard this over the last 800 or so miles behind the wheel listening to XM radio, but it was pointed out that if you Google the number of articles about Paula Jones, Broderick, etc. within a couple of weeks of the stories "breaking" and then do the Cain story, the MSM, led here by Politico, have published orders of magnitude more about this alleged scandal in its early stages than all those Clinton scandals combined. Indeed, Politico, all by itself has published more about the Cain story, than all the MSM did about all (except maybe Lewinsky) of the week of all the Clinton sex scandals combined (and, all of them, where Clinton could be seen as a chronic sexual harasser, and, really, habitual committer of sexual assaults. And, the Politico articles don't apparently get any better sourced or contain any new real evidence, but the dozens of them seem to just replay the same claims in slightly different ways.

With all this talk about the code of ethics, I find myself wondering if anyone's actually bothered to read it:

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

Politico's reporting is totally above board. They've given all the information that was available. Kurtz's question is actually kind of dumb -- we can't possibly know "what precisely" Cain did to these women, because everyone involved is bound by nondisclosure.

The stories, as reported, are all 100% factual. The NRA under Herman Cain settled more than one sexual harassment claim against Herman Cain. That can't be denied and to say that isn't newsworthy is absurd.

When you get right down to it, this is all "shoot the messenger" stuff.

The reason that I am cynical about many sexual harassment claims is that it often really does depend on your perspective.

My boss, awhile back, came to me, and told me that two women in the office had made sexual harassment claims against me, claiming that I would look at their chests when they talked to me. She told me that women know when this is happening, but wouldn't tell me who the two women were.

So, I went to my secretary, told her what had happened, and asked her to help me figure it out. Shortly thereafter, she came back and told me that one of the women was another secretary. It turns out that that secretary would walk around the office, engaging male attorneys in discussions, to get out of working. I knew this because of repeated complaints about this from the other secretaries, who would have to pick up the slack. So, to protect my secretary, I wouldn't make eye contact with this other secretary, and give her an excuse not to work. Turns out that the other claimant was her wannabe. Yes, women still play this middle school game of queen bees and wannabes into their thirties, and probably even later. The second claimant had an office about as far away from mine as possible, and I might say one or two sentences a week to her.

So, I went back to my boss, and told her that if, hypothetically, it were these two women making the claims, that maybe she should talk to some of the other legal secretaries (like mine), and, maybe even some of the other attorneys (suggesting some), on whom this one had plied her (minimal) charms in order to get out of work. And, maybe I was the one who had the better claim for sexual harassment. The next day, I was assured that nothing would go into my personnel file about this, and that was it.

Point though is that if I had not been an attorney, willing to push vindication here, I might have ended up with this as a permanent black mark against me, even though I got into the mess by trying to protect my secretary. Secondly, women do make this sort of thing up (esp., in this case, the wannabe). Third, it may not, and often does not, look like sexual harassment from the guy's point of view. And, if it doesn't, and wouldn't to the average guy (from his perspective), then the women really need to let the guys know what they are doing that makes them, the women, uncomfortable, and, then be willing to accept that they may be wrong.

So, yes, I am cynical about many of the sexual harassment claims in business. Yes, there are insensitive cave men out there, but women do make these claims for all sorts of reasons, not all of which are legitimate. And, there are sexual predators out there too, including one of our former Presidents.

When you get right down to it, this is all "shoot the messenger" stuff.

It might pass as "shoot the messenger", if Politico had published a single story. But, not when it publishes dozens and dozens of them over the last week, with no real added information.

But when there are dozens of stories out there, with almost no real information, except that Cain's employer settled with a couple of women better than a decade ago, it is no longer either news nor shoot the messenger, but pure political spin and propaganda.

This is esp. true for all those media outlets that adamantly refused to cover sex stories about Democrats (esp. Clinton and Edwards) that had many more verified and egregious facts. Or, indeed, that these very same news outlets refused to cover Operation Fast and Furious (and when they finally did, falsely claimed that it was just a follow on to what Bush started).

So, I might give Politico the benefit of the doubt for one story on Cain with the paucity of facts they were able to present. But probably not a second one, and surely not the 20th, 30th, etc., within one week. That isn't being a messenger, but rather a highly partisan attack dog. (Of course, Cain isn't the first Republican that Politico has savaged for purely partisan reasons - you can easily also throw in Palin and Bachmann).

Ritmo - by your way of looking at the world, any woman or minority is to assumed a truth teller regardless of facts. So John Lewis' claim that a tea partier spit on him or said racist things is FACT despite no evidence.

Which is why, if things don't work out as you imagined...blah... blah... blah...

Which is why, if I were at a drive-in movie theater with someone, you would pop into the backseat with a flashlight to shine on us while asking all sorts of ridiculous things: "Why is the sky blue?" "Is it blue for political reasons?" "Does a liberal see the blue sky as a different color than the conservative does?" And so on.

But other than that, good on you for catching the deficiencies of my science education. I will call up all my old professors and preceptors and berate them for not interspersing their teachings of DNA mechanics and extended-orbital bonding with discussions of John Locke, and how he supposedly thought it was a severe infrigement of individual rights to define the period of everything up to 30 days before voting as the appropriate time for monopolizing the airwaves with a greater amount of speech than anyone with less money has access to - hundreds of years before television was invented and election campaigns took place, all because an anonymous dildo on the internet said so.